It was that in the ad she strikes one younger woman with a (non-knuckle) sandwich and pushes another off a chair.

This hardly seems the stuff of controversy. I seem to remember a Miller Lite ad in which ladies were mud-wrestling. And surely just about every video game ad has soaring levels of violence.

Yet the board insisted that Julia Ann was just too aggressive. Its edict specifically mentions the sandwich in the face.

However, it also deemed offensive Julia Ann's retort to a younger woman who says, a tad disinterestedly, to her date: "Oh, so you're a computer geek."

The retort? "You fold sweaters for a living, honey."

In an additional comment that some might find brazen, the board said that the ad was "offensive in its suggestion that older women can take care of young men better than younger women could."

Well, let me tell you about the 22-year-old my engineer friend George met last week. He invited her to a concert. She accepted. Then she didn't reply to any of his witty and thoughtful texts.

The day before the concert, he suddenly got a text from her: "Hey, my friend's going to Bali. Can you look up some information for me?"

I wouldn't dream of suggesting that she represents every young woman on Earth, nor that even most young women fall short in caring qualities. Any more than I would suggest younger men are every woman's delight.

But to ban an ad on the basis that older women can't be seen to take on their younger counterparts seems a touch odd for a nation that takes such pride in sports as openly and gloriously violent as Aussie Rules Football.